The proper units for the proper civilization

[sgates1]

From the rival Civ game, CTP2, I noticed if we are, for example, the French empire we can build Samauri units. However, from my knowledge of world history, I have not been able to find actual Samauri armies in France. For that matter, I have not been able to find any Legions or Knights in China. These are some examples of inaccuracies of world history. Perhaps a more accurate historical perspective would be a good idea? We can go even one step further and have each unit be effective for each type of combat situation. Just something to think about!

[Admiral]

There has been much debate over this. However, the screenshots from the civ 3 website show a F-15 and a MiG-29. As these planes were developed at the same time, it would seem to suggest that at least we will have civ specific pictures, if not units.

[Roman]

Well what you seem to be advocating is unique civilizations. There is much heated debate about this topic - I suggest you search the archives for older threads.

As to different units for different civilizations, I can see some problems with that. For example what type of tanks would the Aztecs (or Romans, or some other civilization that no longer exists) have if they survive into the 20th century? I suppose you could give them units of their successor civilizations, or something like that, but you see the problem. Nevertheless, you are in luck because there will almost certainly be different units for different civilizations. What is as yet undecided by Firaxis, though, is whether they will actually be different unnits, or merely the same units with different graphics and different names. Well that remains to be seen.

I cannot personally make up my mind about whether I would like unique civilizations or not. I don't support it for normal games very much, but I would love to see it for scenarios, which is what I play (and make) most. The best option would probably be if there were unique civs, but the uniquness could be turned off. I am not certain that would be easy to make, though, so I trust Firaxis whatever decision they make on this matter.

[dognheat]

Historical Accuracy isn't something we should be striving for down to the last detail. What if I am the Emporer of the French and want my army to be equiped with Samauri? As the representative of God on Earth how is it I couldn't invest in any army type I choose. The Empire you choose to rule over is just a name and a color that your units will take. Granted having a name like the English, Russians, etc. gives you a connection with history, but don't get carried away.

------------------
*PLOP*

[SerapisIV]

The CGW preview discussed the F-15 as a civ-specific unit. Sort of like the AOK specific units. Its still in playtesting, they aren't sure if that feature will be kept. I'm not sure it should because civs like the Romans/Greeks would probably get an civ-specific ancient unit, while the US/China would geta modern unit. That seems unfair because most warfare or at least most productive Civ warfare happens in the end-game, not before 1000AD.

[Bereta_Eder]

I agree with dognheat and Serapis.

Civ is not about precise reproduction of history. It's fun to be the Babylonians and constantly have Alexander the Great in my face! Or play the Greeks and conquer the Persians or have a childish smile when I capture Rome (which in history went the other way of course).

But that's that. Just a feeling.

And I think unique units are a trap.

For Example, I would not like to have a macedonian phalanx as my unique greek unit. Or have athenian greek fire either. Or even have Byzantine knights. Those would be historically accurate since they were very strong warfare at the time and actually did make a difference then.

But if I am to have a few great phalanx when later the Russian might have extraordinary spies, or the Americans technologically superior F-16s then I have a serious problem Especially if I don't want to conquer in ancient times but play perfectionist.

And what would be the unique units in the old times for civs that didn't even exist as «civs» then?

It is also a trap because we have to separate ancient civs from modern nations. For example, at the old times civs had real warfare differences. Legions, Phalanx, War Elephants each was associated with a particular civ, Rome, Greece, Persia and so on.

But moving on to the modern times, the armies have become very much the same, they are uniformal. So what is the «uniqueness» of a unit (compared to a civ) anymore?

Italians don't fight with legions anymore, Greeks have the phalanx's arms in museums, and Iran has elephants mainly for transortation They all fight (or at least those in the «west», Nato etc) with F16s and later will fight with Eurofighters and the story goes on.


In the modern era, uniqueness of war units would have some sense only if there were only two countries: USA and USSR - Russia or two «blocks». F16s and Migs all with there respective advantages and disadvantages.


The only solution that I could see if we absolutely HAD to have unique units would be to divide the game in eras (like the wonders are divided in anceint, rennaiscance, Industrial era etc) and then add bonuses in each civ's same unit. For example all civs have war planes but one civ might have better defence rate at them and another civ better attack etc. Another civ would have better firepower at the battleships etc etc.

But still, I think that would open the Pandora's box for some people who don;t think their civ (now nation) should have been given that benefit instead of the other one and... you get the picture.

[tniem]

I am against total historical units or the so-called "civ specific units." It just does not fit with the idea behind civ. That said I do not believe Sid will include it. He and the gang at Firaxis have probably kicked the idea around and have tried some different prototypes with unique units. My guess is that the same concerns we have with them they had with them and they were not able to come up with any good solutions for these problems.

So, instead the MiG and the F16s are simply two different units that we can all build. My hope is that these parallel units will carry throughout time and with Firaxis saying that the military part of the game has been overhauled and expanded they will include many more units with different attributes. While these differences may be slim as one extra attack versuses one extra tile per turn, it may be enough to change the game when built. I can hope.

[Gammaray fan]

Perhaps a way to get around the civ-specific unit problem, but still have unique units, is to get offered a choice when you discover a military tech. For example, when you discover iron working you should have a choice of discovering legions or samurai - each with its unique benefits. That way, the Romans could have their legions, but would not also have samurai. The Japanese could opt for Samurai's and therefore not have legions! This can be applied to all major units to create civs which have a unique set of units, but who are not locked into always having to use them!

[Mister Pleasant]

Would civ specific units also entail that only Americans can build stealth aircraft/seacraft?

[Gammaray fan]

That is the problem with civ-specific units. Its contrary to the spirit of the game which states that 'can YOU build an empire to stand the test of time' (taken from CIV1) it is not supposed to simulate historical events. It is however, supposed to simulate the factors in which these historical events took place. Therefore, it is supposed to simulate that a technologically advanced civ might develop stealth units, but not that specifically the Americans have this unit. This difference is CRITICAL in understanding the game. I believe the reason why such debate was raised in the first place was in a desire for a player to have different units to their enemies. Thus I proposed my model of selecting which military unit a tech gives you. (See my previous entry)

[axemann]

The idea of civ-specific units is extremely appealing *in theory*. If it were to be utilized, I would say that it should only occur on the graphics level. This means that your civ would construct "phalanx" units that would have the same values as the phalanx of other civs. But your units would look different to reflect the architectural style of your civ. It could simply be tied in to the architectural style you choose at the beginning of the game, assuming that Sid keeps this feature from Civ2. Of course, this means that the developers will have to design at least four parallel designs for each unit type (or many of them). So they might figure it's not worth the headache.

[SerapisIV]

I'm all for gameplay identical, but graphically different units. An Asian knight should where oriental armor, not European plate armor. The uniqueness though should fade in the modern era as a tank from one country really isn't different from another. Even musketry in Asia was used similarly to European usage (Roman v. Zulu, not talking about US vs. Russian type stuff, thats too specific)

[airdrik]

Another solution would be to have certain advances improove a civ's unique unit. This would allow for different civ's special units to still be useful into the modern age, but then there would be a small problem with stealth-rifle-phalanxes (6/7/2/2/2).

[Mister Pleasant]

Right on Serapis IV! I supported this position on an earlier forum (did you recommend it there also?). Cosmetic aspects of a unit could vary with architectual style, which means by the industrial age, everyone pretty much looks the same. I guess what I was trying to get at with my earlier post on the stealth was that only the US has these sorts of aircraft/seacraft (as far as I know) so that there would be no Russian/Chinese/Zulu style of stealth - so would they all just look like American Wobbley Goblins? Or would they not exist? Or even have artist's conception appearances?

[SerapisIV]

I got the whole samurai armor argument from some earlier thread, couldn't tell you when though, but I've read the forums for over a year before I ever posted. Was looking for SMAC strategies.